|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Sprint NAP
One must increasingly _spell things out_ these days. Good to elliminate misunderstandings ; bad to not be able to depend on goodwill and doing the right thing. Marc On Thu, 20 Jun 1996, Tim Salo wrote: > Subject: Re: Sprint NAP > > > To: Peter Lothberg <[email protected]> > > Cc: "nanog" <[email protected]> > > Subject: Sprint NAP > > From: Daniel Karrenberg <[email protected]> > > Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1996 10:04:26 +0200 > > > > > Peter Lothberg <[email protected]> writes: > > > > > > SPRINT NETWORK ACCESS POINT (NAP) > > > TERMS AND CONDITIONS > > > .... > > > > > > 6. IP Address Assignment > > > > > > The customer shall receive his IP address assignment(s) from Sprint. Any > > > address(es) provided by Sprint shall remain the property of Sprint ... > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > Address ownership .... what a concept. > > Although this is doing the right thing, the wording is dubious. > > Actually, I believe that the addresses in question are _host_ addresses, > (for devices directly attached to the Sprint NAP). I don't quite know > what someone would do with a Sprint NAP host address if they "kept" > it. > > You are correct that the language seems rather emphatic to networking > types, but it probably works well for the lawyers. > > -tjs > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
|